tv House Debate on Internal Revenue Service Investigation CSPAN May 10, 2014 11:08am-12:01pm EDT
they wanted us to fix it and she was prepared to do it. that's for a different court to decide. the only question now is did she, in fact, give testimony and then assert the fifth amendment and then give some more testimony and can we have that kind of activity? we have dismissed other people who came before our committee, asserted their fifth amendment rights after enough questions to know they were going to continue to assert, we dismissed them. we have a strong record of respecting the first, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth amendment and so on. that's what this congress does and we do it every day and our committee does it. rather than listen to debate here which was filled with factual inaccuracies, refuted in documentation that is available to the american people, rather than believe that the minority's assertion should carry the day
because the gentleman from georgia said, if about eight different ifs, thans, they would vote for this. the gentleman from vermont said, we shouldn't be doing this or finding her guilty, this should be before a judge. he may not have understood because what we are doing is putting the question did she properly waive or not and should she be back before us or be held in contempt and punished for not giving it? this won't be my decision, this will be a lifetime appointment nonpartisan federal judge. the only thing we are doing today is sending it for that consideration. and if the court rules that, in fact, her conduct was not a waiver, then we will have a modern update to understand the set of events here. but we'll still have the same problem, which is lois lerner was at the center of an
operation that abused americans for their political beliefs. asked them inappropriate questions, delayed and denied their aprovals. the minority asserted well they could have self-selected. maybe they could have, maybe they should have, but it wouldn't change the fact that der penalty of perjury the i.r.s. was asking inappropriate questions. the i.r.s. is an organization we don't have confidence in. we need to re-establish that and part of that is understanding how and why a high-ranking person at the i.r.s. so blatantly abused conservative groups in america that were adverse to the president, no doubt, but that shouldn't be the basis under which you get scrutinized, audited or abused and yet it clearly was. it is essential we vote yes on contempt and let the court
decide but more importantly let the american people have confidence that we will protect thei jackson lee, each will would control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: on may 10, 2013, the internal revenue service admitted to inappropriately targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny in connection with their applications for tax-exempt status. president obama denounced this behavior as outrageous and unacceptable and stated the i.r.s. is an independent agency and requires absolute integrity
and people have to have confidence that they are applying the law in a nonpartisan way. he pledged that the administration would, quote, find out exactly what happened, end quote, and would make sure wrongdorse were held fully accountable. in testimony before my committee on may 15, 2013. attorney general holder testified that the department of justice would conduct a dispassionate investigation into the i.r.s.'s admitted farthering of conservative groups. the attorney general promised me and members of the judiciary committee that this will not be about parties or ideological persuasions and anyone broken the law will be held accountable, end accountable. that appears where the administration's commitment to pursuing this investigation ended. we have all seen the testimony from conservative groups stating that they had yet to be interviewed by the department of
justice investigators more than a year after the allegations came to light. additionally, the administration has sought to undermine whatever investigation the d.o.j. was conducting at every opportunity. earlier this year, unnamed department of justice officials leaked information to the "wall street journal," suggesting that the department does not plan to file criminal charges over the i.r.s.'s targeting of conservative groups. when asked who leaked this information to the media and if the department plans to prosecute the leaker once eyed fide attorney general holder admitted he has not looked into this leak. the president obama said there is not a smidgen of corruption inside the i.r.s. investigation. they appointed barbara bosserman in the civil rights division to head the
investigation. she has donated more than $6,000 to president obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012. the relevant regulations require the attorney general to appoint a special counsel when he determines three circumstances exist. first, that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted. second, that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a united states attorney's office or litigating division of the department of justice would present a conflict of interest for the department or other extraordinary circumstances and, three, that under the circumstances it would be in the public interest to appoint an oud special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. it should be noted that these regulations require the attorney general to exercise subjected discretion. however, there should be little doubt to any nufrle observer
that the requirements for appointing a special counsel have been satisfied. first, as shown in the ways and means committee's referral letter to the department of justice, there are serious allegations that i.r.s. officials, including former director of exempt organizations head, lois lerner, violated federal law by targeting conservative groups and by releasing confidential ax information to the media. continuing information comes to light, including the prosecution of conservative groups for engaging in political activity that is legal under federal law. second, it is clear that a conflict of interest exists between d.o.j. investigators and this administration. as a legal matter, determining whether a conflict of interest exists requires the determination of whether external interests, one's own or those of other clients or third persons are likely to
impact the exercise of independent professional judgment. in addition to ms. bosserman's clear conflict of interest, this administration's statements and actions have repeatedly served to undermine the department of justice investigation and have created an indisputable conflict of interest. third, it is equally clear that appointing an outside special counsel to investigate this matter would be in the public interest. the american people are very concerned that their government has targeted individual american citizens for harassment solely on the basis of their political beliefs. the american people deserve to know who ordered the targeting, when the targeting was ordered and why. for many americans, the i.r.s. is the primary way they interact with the federal government. to now have the i.r.s. acting as a politicized organization that percent cutes citizens for their -- persecutes citizens
for their political beliefs, shakes the core of american democracy. under the circumstances, this administration cannot creditably investigate this matter. it is -- crediblely investigate this matter. it is time that they appoint a special counsel to get to the bottom of this. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker, and i ask to speak for as much time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, as i begin this discussion to , i rise in opposition h.res. 565. and i want to lay the premise of the discussion as i begin to explain why the question of why is not answered. and i would imagine that the question of why will not be answered by the conclusion of
this debate. the premise of the resolution, h.res. 565, are on the federal 600.2 and 6001, 600.3. on the face of the resolution and the facts, there are no evidence under either of the two initial ones, and that is, first, there's been no elimination of the question of whether there is a criminal investigation or whether there should be. and the grounds for appointing a special counsel include whether or not they determine uch investigation is needed, that the investigation or prosecution by the united states attorney's office would present a conflict of interest and the circumstances would be in the public's interest. none of those criteria have
been met. first of all, on a may 7 letter most recently, the u.s. department of justice has said there is an ongoing determination of criminal investigation -- ongoing investigation. into all of the allegations, from the ways and means, from the oversight committee, there is an ongoing u.s. department of justice investigation. now, i believe in congressional versight, but i also believe in rational congressional oversight which is, why are we asking for a special counsel when the department of justice is in the middle of an active investigation? there have been no conclusion. there's been no suggestion there will not be a further investigation, criminal investigation. and there's no proven conflict of interest. the department of justice's
employee that's been mentioned by the majority, one, is not lead counsel, as evidenced in a letter dated february 3, 2014. three, president obama is not the point of this investigation, as i understand it, and the individual made private free speech donations in the course of a campaign. are you suggesting that a public employee does not have the private personal right, first amendment right of freedom of speech? i would think not. so i rise in strong opposition to h.res. 565. there are no ground for it. the justice department is working and it is investigating. again, for those of you who are unaware of the legal authority on this resolution, it's based on a series of regulations promulgated by the justice departmentes that been adhered to by republican and democratic
administrations. may not like the results of it, but it gives the criteria for authorizing the attorney general to appoint a special counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a personal or matter is warranted. there is an ongoing investigation, and that means that at the conclusion, when all of the data and information is reviewed, that decision is still to be made. there is no closure now to suggest that the department of justice has not done what it's supposed to do. in some, these circumstances are that the justice department's prosecution will present a conflict of interest for the department, that it would be in the public interest for the special counsel to assume responsibility. this measure that we're debating today, however, utterly fails to meet any of that criteria. sponsors of h.res. 565 make unsupported conflict of interest allegations against a mid-level career attorney whose
only fault was to engage in constitutionally activity and which is not the lead counsel, definitively is not the lead counsel. we have two distinct and qualified experts who screen -- professor law at fordham university, another expert from columbia who clearly articulate -- sis in experts conflicts of interest. in fact, the ranking member of the oversight and government reform committee issued a report earlier this week dealing the committee's year-long i.r.s. investigation. among his findings is over the course of lengthy and detailed interviews, 39 witnesses, absolutely no evidence of white house involvement was identified. ot a single one of these
witnesses' -- employees who identify themselves as republican, democrat, independent, no affiliation. another fact is that there is already is, as i indicated, an jog going investigation with regard to this matter. and they are complying with the structure of the appointment process for a special counsel. there's been no determination of conflict. there have been no determination that we are ending the investigation to the lack of satisfaction of the united states congress. we're in an ongoing investigation. 600.2 of the code of the federal regulation explicitly authorizes the attorney general to direct an initial investigation in lieu of appointing a special counsel to determine whether grounds can even exist to warrant the appointment of a special counsel. an easy manner, other than the resolution on the floor of the house, a simple letter could have been written to the
attorney general for his consideration. so what is this resolution about? to begin with, it's pure political theater. rather than simply writing a letter to the attorney general asking him to appoint a special counsel, which is a time-honored way to do this, the house leadership has resorted to using a resolution that is subject to floor debate and, of course, c-span coverage, but has no real legal effect. even "the wall street journal's" editorial board, which is certainly not a partisan entity as it relates to its advocacy of president obama or his administration, it is not the bashing of liberalism, noting in an editorial a year ago said calling for a special counsel is a form of cheap political gays that gets a quick headline. i'd rather have us working together, mr. speaker. i'd rather us get to the facts. i'd rather that the professional men and women at the u.s. department of justice be allowed to pursue this investigation unbiased and
thorough. rather than promoting greater transparency, the appointment of a spesh counsel, as "the wall street journal" point out, would have the opposite result. the journal explains that the prosecutor would move to the shadows. and the administrator of the i.r.s. would use it to limit its cooperation with congress. special prosecutors aren't famous for its speed. whatever the prosecutor has discovered will stay secret. and even if criminal charges were filed, the facts of the indictment could stray. beyond proving the specific case in a court, a special prosecutor will not be concerned with the law of public policy consequences and public accountability. we could be doing other things and we cannot be spending $14 million. there's been no basis for this resolution to pass, and i ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution. with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the
gentleman from texas, mr. poe, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, this is about real people, and one of those is my friend and constituent down in houston, texas, as a name of kathryn, founder of truth of vote and king street patriots in houston, texas, and once she became intimidated and harassed by our very own government, all because she dared to speak her mind and engage in politics, a right she is guaranteed under the constitution. it all began when kathryn, a business woman, applied for a nprofit status in 2010 for true the vote and king street patriots and so began the tidal wave of government inquiries and harassment. she said it best in testimony before congress, quote, we applied for nonprofit status in
2010. since then the i.r.s. has run us through a gaunt let of analysis and -- gauntlet of analysis and hundreds of questions over and over and over again. they requested to see and each and every tweet i ever tweeted and every facebook post i ever posted and every place i have ever spoken, who was in the audience and everywhere i intend to speak in the future. this is our government, our government oppressing someone at its worse. and there's even more. we have learned that the i.r.s. even asked her group and others for their donor list. this level of detail goes well beyond the business of the i.r.s., but it didn't stop there. all of a sudden, the federal government's snooping included six visits by the f.b.i. where they would sit in the auditorium
when she was speaking, two of those visits were by the terrorist investigation division of the f.b.i. they had numerous and multiple unannounced visits from osha, a.t.f. and the texas equivalent of the e.p.a. was this a similarity that they were investigating the group or was it collusion? we really don't know. unfortunately our justice department has lost credibility with the american public on investigating the i.r.s. we need to have things be right and things need to look right and we need to have a special counsel. and i would like to conclude with a statement that was made abrahamoff investigation in 2006. the highly political context of the charges may lead some to
surmise that political influence may compromise the investigation, because this investigation is vital to restoring the public's faith in government. any appearance of bias, special favor or political consideration would be a further blow to democracy. appointment of a special counsel would ensure that the investigation and the prosecution will proceed without fear or favor and provide the public with full confidence that no one is above the law. signed, barack obama, 2006. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from virginia has 11 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentlelady from texas has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: my pleasure to ive a minute and a half to the entlelady from new mexico.
ms. lujan grisham: tax exempt social welfare groups must exclusively promote social welfare and the i.r.s. continues to allow these groups to engage in partisan, political activity instead of their social welfare mission. this has allowed nonprofits to spend over a quarter of a billion dollars on partisan political activities while keeping their donors secret. congress has known about this issue for years and done absolutely nothing. mr. speaker, i came to congress to solve problems on behalf of the american people and this resolution does absolutely nothing to solve the underlying problem that we have identified at the i.r.s. as long as congress continues to ignore the fact that social welfare organizations are actively engaged in political activity, social welfare groups will continue spending hundreds
of millions of dollars on partisan political campaign activities indirect contradiction to current federal law and congressional intent. i urge my colleagues to vote against this very partisan resolution. it doesn't solve any underlying problems and instead passes legislation that enforces federal law and prohibits social welfare groups from engaging in partisan political activity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from texas reserves? the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, a member of the judiciary committee and author of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from recognized for five minutes. mr. jordan: i thank the chair for all his good work and being recognized. the gentlelady from texas said in her opening statement, there's been no conclusion to the investigation.
yes, there has. and this lerner knows it. why do you think she is willing to sit down with the justice department and answer their questions? she knows the fix is in and has been pre-judged and decided. when the department of justice leaks to the "wall street journal" no one is going to be referred for prosecution, she knows she is just fine. the investigation is over. they are not doing it. the highest elected official in this land goes on national television and says there's nothing there, not even a smidgeon, mislerner knows the fix is in. quick time line, she goes in front of a bar association group in town and with the planted question tells that group and the whole country that conservative groups were targeted for exercising their first amendment free speech rights and she did that unprecedented. she did it before the inspector general's report was made public. unprecedented what she did. not only in actions but in spilling the beans before the
report was issued. may 13, we get the report from the inspector general said targeting of conservative groups were targeted. may 14, last year, the attorney general launches a criminal investigation and says this, what took place was outrageous and unacceptable and the president of the united states says what took place is inexcuseable. june of last year in the judiciary committee we had director mueller and we asked him three simple questions, who is the agent and have you talked to the victims. and the f.b.i. director's response was, i don't know, i don't know, i don't know. seven written inquiries saying can you tell us who is leading who nd everyone tells us the witnessesr how many agents have you assigned? seven different inquiries, no response from the department of
justice. january 13 of this year, f.b.i. leaks to the wall street jourm no one is going to be prosecuted. d we learn that barbara, a max-out contributor of the president's campaign is leading the investigation. take that fact pattern and apply to the elements that the attorney general looks at if you are going to have a special prosecutor. three elements, the code of federal regulations the a.g. appoints a special counsel when he determines three things, that a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted. of course it is warranted. this is a big matter. this is a violation of people's first amendment rights. and the ways and means committee has said she should be referred for prosecution. second, that investigation by the department of justice would present a conflict of interest
for the department. if we don't have a conflict of interest here, i don't know where we do. the president has pre-judged the outcome and the "wall street journal" has leaked to the public that no prosecutions and the chief investigator is a chief donor. it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside public counsel. i would think that the treasury would want this. there are all kinds of americans that this thing isn't being done on a fair and impartial manner. i would think that the attorney general would pick someone that everyone agrees would do a fair job. why have this cloud over the investigation that the person leading the investigation gave $6,750 to the president's campaign. this is something the administration should want to do because it clears up in peoples' minds that we will get to the
truth and have a real investigation. never forget what took place here. this is so important, people's fundamental rights, your right to speak out against your government was targeted, that's why we need to get to the truth and that's why we need a special counsel who will do a real investigation. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: it is important to state that one of the provisions that is not in the regulations establishing a special counsel, it is not a get -you procedure. it follows an orderly process which the department of justice is engaged in. and i would like to introduce into the record a letter dated february 23, 2014, that indicates that the justice department lawyer that has been charged with leading the investigation is not leading the investigation. they are part of the team. that letter is february 3, 2014.
i would ask unanimous consent to place it into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: gives me a privilege to introduce a member of the house judiciary committee, mr. deutch, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. speaker and i thank my friend, the gentlelady from texas. mr. speaker, we have learned a great deal since allegations rfaced that the i.r.s. officials discriminated against conservative-leaning groups. i joined with my republican colleagues in condemning the notion that politics influenced the behavior of the i.r.s. we learned, however, that the i.r.s. kept a list of keywords that triggered extra review, misguided practice that we are grateful had since stopped. we learned that the i.r.s. targeted more liberal-leaning
groups than conservative ones . but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have apparently failed to learn however is that the clear solution to this problem is to get the i.r.s. out of the business of evaluating political conduct. i agree, i wholeheartedly agree with my colleagues that the i.r.s. has no business meddling in our elections but we don't need a special counsel to make this stop. applications for 501 c-4 status, tax-exempt status exploded after the citizens united decision because special interests, special interests found a new way to secretly funnel way into our elections. let me tell you how it works. because these groups aren't required to disclose their donors bent on influencing the political process for their benefit, anonymously give to the 501 c-4 and then funnels the
money to the super pac and millions of secret dollars influencing our elections. we ought to be working together in a bipartisan way to get secret money out of our elections. i asked the treasury department to review the regulations, revise the rules and restore integrity and to ensure taxpayers are never again forced to subsidize blatantly political behavior. i would have hoped that my colleagues in the majority would have joined me in that effort. instead republican leaders attempted to block treasury from fixing these broken rules and forcing the secret givers to tell us who they are and what they want from this congress. i'm afraid there is only one explanation for this latest partisan solution. i hope i'm wrong. i hope republicans don't want to protect secret money and that they don't want to protect the
billionaires who want to conceal themselves from the american people but believe they have the right to funnel millions of into through 501 c-4's super pac. prove me wrong by working in a bipartisan way to protect the american people from helping sham special interest groups influence elections on the taxpayers' dime. let's bring transparency and accountability back to our elections, reject this sham resolution and prove me wrong. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the entleman from florida, mr. desantis, a member of the judiciary committee. eesdees a year ago when --
dedeep a year ago, the president of the united states said it was outrageous and said we demand full accountability. attorney general holder said it was quote outrageous and unacceptable. everybody agreed this was serious. everybody agreed that this required a serious investigation. as we sit here a year later, it's clear that we have not seen the action that we were promised. first of all, the department of justice had been discussing with the i.r.s. as late as may of 2013, the possibility that some of these groups that were targeted could be prosecuted criminally. so the d.o.j. actually had a role with the i.r.s. we know that the investigation is being led by somebody who is a big contributor to president obama's re-election campaign. of course, the president of the super bowl earlier said this
year that the investigation was over, he said nothing happened, not even a smidgeon of impropriety. and the department of justice has leaked to the media that no prosecutions will in fact occur. and when the president said as a senator in 2006 that the highly political context of the allegations and charges may lead some to surmise that political influence may compromise the investigation because this investigation is vital to restoring the public's faith in government, any appearance of bias, special favor or political consideration would be a further blow to our democracy, when he said that, that are quote basic apply applies to what we have now. the american people don't want the government targeting their first amendment rights. if it's done, they need to be held accountable. when this is all said and done, the american people want to have confidence that this was looked at in a fair manner. and when you have all these
political considerations swirling around, i don't think many americans have confidence that the department of justice is doing this in a way that's not conflicted. and don't forget, the entire context of this whole scandal was targeting essentially the president's political opposition in the runup to his re-election campaign. i'm proud to stand here supporting this resolution. i think voting yes on it is voting yes for transparency and accountability in government. nd i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time remaining, this gentlelady from texas has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: let me say very quickly that the entire premise of the gentleman's comments have been proven absolutely wrong. 39 witnesses never said one moment that the presidential election of that time, of 2012,
was in way involved in this particular -- was any way involved in this particular issue. we have the inspector jep for tax administration, appoint bid a republican, is a republican, working with the department of justice. you i'd -- now i'd like to yield five minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee who has had a detailed investigation and oversight from his committee on this issue, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for ive minutes. mr. levin: let me sum up what this is all about. this hallowed institution must not be turned into a campaign arm of either political party. that's what the house republicans are exactly doing here. it's been a year since multiple
committee investigations began nto the i.r.s. handling of 501-c-4 organization applications and republicans are no closer to finding evidence to back up their baseless allegations of a white house enemies list, as they said, or a white house culture of coverup as a republican said on day one. so here's what's been going ofpblet more than 250 employees at the i.r.s. have worked more -- been 00 hours going on. more than 250 employees at the i.r.s. have worked more than hours and sent documents to the department. interviews have been conducted, more than $14 million in
taxpayer money has been spent by the i.r.s. responding to congressional investigations. and here's what we know. documents show that the i.r.s. used inappropriate criteria to treat progressive groups as they did for conservative groups. there was never any evidence of white house involvement. nada. there was never any evidence of political motivation. audit was fore the published last may, the i.g.'s head of investigation reviewed 5,500 pages of documents and determined that there was no, i quote, no indication that pulling the selected applications was politically motivated, end of quotes.
instead, the head of investigation said the cases were consolidated due to, and i quote, unclear processing directions. so now republicans have indicated that they think this action today is necessary because the department of justice did not react quickly enough to the referral of information from ways and means and lois lerner that was sent last month. there is a letter from the department of justice saying that they have received this information and have referred it to those in charge of the i.r.s. investigation. -- investigation at justice. so the republicans say they want an independent investigation, but what they really want to do is to interrupt the investigation going on and preempt it with their on political theater, indeed, talking about fixation,
their political fixation. i say this not only to my colleagues, but to every one of our citizens, this is the house of representatives. not a political circus. i ask my colleagues to see this for what it's worth and vote no on the resolution. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from texas reserves. the gentleman from virginia is ecognized. mr. goodlatte: i have only one speaker remaining, myself, and i believe we have the right to close, so we would be prepared. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: could you give us how much time is remaining on both sides, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas has 2 1/2 minutes, the gentleman from virginia has four minutes. the gentlelady from texas is recognized.
ms. jackson lee: thank you. i'm sure my kind friend would yield me some additional time but i'll use what i have. thank you very much. let me try to bring us together, mr. speaker, yesterday in the rules committee, there was a collegiate moment when we said, let's clarify the law. if there's anything that democrats and republicans agree ineptness, that wrongness, misdirection was obviously evidenced in the equal targeting of all groups, group this is a had the name progressive and occupy and others. none of us as members of congress want the citizens of the united states to be in any way intimidated by a government that's here to help them. and i stand here saying, we can come together to ensure that all of our government agencies work well. the president made the point in
may of 2013, if in fact the i.r.s. personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups and it's been noted by the witnesses in the overesight -- oversight committee that they were targeting over groups as well, then that's outrageous and there's no place for it. there's no conflict in this. what we are now debating is the fallacy of the appointment of a special counsel and the $14 million and the 700,000 pages unredakotaed documents, more than 250 people that have been respond -- unredacted documents, more than too people that have been responding, and i ask to include the letter to congressman levin that talks about the litany of requests that the i.r.s. has been requested to do. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: i also want to again add into this row -- add into the record a may 7, 2014,
letter that emphasize this is a this is a bipartisan investigation, with the inspector general of the treasury tax administration appointed by george bush working with the u.s. department of justice. it negates very visibly any suggestion of conflict of interest or that this is a biased investigation. in addition, i think it is very important to note that we are the congress and the administration, but i take great issue in suggesting the lack of integrity of our employees in the federal government. that they would do anything to undermine an official investigation and the letter that we received on february 3, 2014, debunks any personal relationship of this single attorney in a single office with anyone political candidate from a personal perspective. a do nation, yes.
but are you suggesting that that individual has no private right to exercise their free speech? no close identification with an elected official new york relationship with families and children, and so mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to vote against this resolution that is not grounded in any substance, does not meet the standard of 60.-- 600.1, 600.2, there is no investigation that is over, there's no suggestion that they are not in essence investigating all parties, and that there will not be a conclusion that will ultimately make a decision that is unbiased as to whether or not persons will be criminally prosecuted. and so this resolution does not meet the standard. it is again taking up space on the floor. i would like to see unemployment insurance, immigration reform, i would like to help the american people and pass job legislation to make a difference here in
the united states congress. i have one other document i'd like to add into the record, mr. chairman. mr. speaker. f i could. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, it will be ordered. the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. these letters are experts saying there's no conflict of interest osm pose this present resolution and let's move on to come together and effectively work on behalf of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: in response to the gentlelady and the gentleman who said that this hallowed institution should not be turned into a campaign arm of either political party, i agree with the gentleman's assertion and i believe he would agree with me that the internal revenue service should not be turned into a political arm of any administration.
the i.r.s., the tax collectors, have the most unenvee i can't believe job. hey're de-- unenveeable job, -- unenvyable job. to turn that organization into an organization the people mistrust is an abuse and the contention that the i.r.s. targeted progressives is debunked by this staff report prepared by the house of representatives committee on oversight and government reform dated april 7, 2014. just one month ago. i will read from the conclusion of this that report. evidence -- of that report. evidence available contradicts democrat's claims of bipartisan targeting. though the bolo list included liberal groups only tea party applicants received systematic scrutiny because of their
political beliefs. public and nonpublic analysis of i.r.s. data show that the i.r.s. routinely approved liberal applications while holding and scrutinizing conservative applications. even training documents indicate stark differences between liberal and conservative applications. quote, progressive applications are not considered tea parties. these facts show one unyielding truth. tea party groups were targeted because of their political beliefs. liberal groups were not. and from the executive summary, for months the administration and congressional democrats have attempted to down play the i.l.: -- i.r.s. misconduct. first the administration sought minimize the fallout by preemptively acknowledging the misconduct in a planted question in an obscure tax conference. when that failed, the administration shifted to blaming rogue agents and lying
employees for the targeting. when those assertions proved false, congressional democrats baselessly attacked the character of the inspector general. their -- this is another effort to distract if the fact that the obama i.r.s. systematically targeted and delayed tax applicants. the gentleman is right this institution should not be ewed, nor should the i.r.s. be used, to benefit either political party. and that is why an independent rofessional -- an independent, professional, special counsel should be appointed because the three tests for that appointment have been met. that is the reason why we are here today. a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted, an investigation of that person or matter by the united states attorney's office or litigating division of the department of justice would prevent a
conflict of interest an all these false aserlingses made over and over again show there's a conflict in this investigation by this administration and third that under those circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. it is time for that outside special counsel to be appointed, to take the politics out of this, and to make sure that the american people's interest in having an internal revenue service, the tax collectors of the country, not attempting to influence public policy, not taking ideological points of view in the enforcement of our tax laws is not to take place and the only way we can assure it is by having that special counsel appointed. i urge my colleagues to >> saying house republicans are
pushing harder on the issue of benghazi and not the irs. the house voted to create a special committee to look into the tax that happened in libya. we will show part of the floor debate tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern time here on c-span. next twos out for the weeks. members will be back may 19. the senate will be in this coming week. monday at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. rubio wasnator marco in new hampshire last night. he spoke at the rocking ham county freedom founders dinner. here is what he said. if you look at the policies they are following, it is policies that say to the american people, this is the new normal. what we need now is a big, powerful government that makes it easier for us to accept this new normal. they will never admit this, of course.
in their policies they admit this. their ideas are stale. ther ideas never work in 20th century, much less in the 21st. they are threatening to nominate someone who wants to take us to the past. the 20th century is gone. we live in the 21st century. a time with extraordinary challenges and opportunities. that is where our party must step in. partymocratic party is a that believes that the 21st century will be opposed american era. we believe the 21st century will be another american century. it will take to succeed in the 21st century happens to be the things that americans are best at. innovation, investment, creativity, entrepreneurship. peoples no nation and no on the earth that do that better
than americans. [applause] we will be showing all of senator rubio's remarks tonight at 8:00 eastern time. angeles, leaders in the cable industry came together to talk about the latest technology and other issues at the 2014 cable show. the opening session included remarks by time warner cable ceo rob marcus, good morning, sports fans. no better way to get this started them with a marching band. think they will get a little satisfaction this year on the gridiron. it is now a two